The history of the Neocon takeover of the USA (a 4 part analysis)

Foreword by the Saker: the four articles below, combined into one, are an exception to the normal rule which is that this blog doe not republish articles already published in the past. In this case, at the request of Paul Fitzgerald and Elizabeth Gould, I decided to make an exception due to the importance and interest of the topic: the origins of the Neocon movement. I am particularly grateful to Paul and Elizabeth who have agreed to my request to remove the original copyright restrictions on this material for publication on the Saker blog. The analysis they wrote offers a very valuable insight into the roots and history of the Neocon phenomenon.

The history of the Neocon takeover of the USA (a 4 part analysis)

By Paul Fitzgerald and Elizabeth Gould

Part 1 – American Imperialism Leads the World into Dante’s Vision of Hell

Before the Tomahawk Missiles start flying between Moscow and New York, Americans had better educate themselves fast about the forces and the people who claim that Russia covered up a Syrian government gas attack on its own people. Proof no longer seems to matter in the rush to further transform the world into Dante’s vision of Hell. Accusations made by anonymous sources, spurious sources and outright frauds have become enough. Washington’s paranoia and confusion bear an uncanny resemblance to the final days of the Third Reich, when the leadership in Berlin became completely unglued. Tensions have been building since fall with accusations that Russian media interfered with our presidential election and is a growing threat to America’s national security. The latest WikiLeaks release strongly suggested that it was the CIA’s own contract hackers behind Hillary Clinton’s email leaks and not Russians. The U.S. has a long reputation of accusing others of things they didn’t do and planting fake news stories to back it up in order to provide a cause for war. The work of secret counter intelligence services is to misinform the public in order to shape opinion and that’s what this is. The current U.S. government campaign to slander Russia over anything and everything it does bears all the earmarks of a classic disinformation campaign but this time even crazier. Considering that Washington has put Russia, China and Iran on its anti-globalist hit-list from which no one is allowed to escape, drummed up charges against them shouldn’t come as a surprise. But accusing the Russians of undermining American democracy and interfering in an election is tantamount to an act of war and that simply is not going to wash. This time the United States is not demonizing an ideological enemy (USSR) or a religious one (al Qaeda, ISIS, Daesh etc.). It’s making this latest venture into the blackest of propaganda a race war, the way the Nazis made their invasion of Russia a race war in 1941 and that is not a war the United States can justify or win.

Americans should know by now that their country’s wars are fertile ground for biased, one-sided, xenophobic, fake news and the United States has been in a permanent state of war since 1941. Although the targets have shifted over the years, the purpose of the propaganda hasn’t. Most cultures are coerced, cajoled or simply threatened into accepting known falsehoods demonizing their enemies during wartime but no matter how frequently repeated or cleverly told—no lie can hold if the war never ends. The legendary Cold Warrior, Time and Life Magazine’s Henry Luce considered his personal fight against Communism to be “a declaration of private war.” He’d even asked one of his executives whether or not the idea was probably “unlawful and probably mad?” Nonetheless, despite his doubts about his own sanity, Luce allowed the CIA to use his Time/Life as a cover for the agency’s operations and to provide credentials to CIA personnel.

Luce was not alone in his service to the CIA’s propaganda wars. Recently declassified documents reveal the CIA’s propaganda extended to all the mainstream media outlets. Dozens of the most respected journalists and opinion makers during the Cold War considered it a privilege to keep American public opinion from straying away from CIA control.

Now that the new Cold War has turned hot, we are led to believe that the Russians have breached this wall of not-so-truthful journalists and rattled the foundation of everything we are supposed to hold dear about the purity of the U.S. election process and “freedom of the press” in America.

Black propaganda is all about lying. Authoritarian governments lie regularly. Totalitarian governments do it so often nobody believes them. A government based on democratic principles like the United States is supposed to speak the truth, but when the U.S. government’s own documents reveal it has been lying over and over again for decades, the jig is up.

Empires have been down this road before and it doesn’t end well. Americans are now being told they should consider all Russian opinion as fake and ignore any information that challenges the mainstream media and U.S. government on what is truth and what is the lie. But for the first time in memory Americans have become aware that the people Secretary of State Colin Powell once called “the crazies”, have taken the country over the cliff.

The neoconservative hitmen and hit-ladies of Washington have a long list of targets that pass from generation to generation. Their influence on American government has been catastrophic yet it never seems to end. Senator J. William Fulbright identified their irrational system for making endless war in Vietnam 45 years ago in a New Yorker article titled Reflections in Thrall to Fear.

“The truly remarkable thing about this Cold War psychology is the totally illogical transfer of the burden of proof from those who make charges to those who question them… The Cold Warriors, instead of having to say how they knew that Vietnam was part of a plan for the Communization of the world, so manipulated the terms of the public discussion as to be able to demand that the skeptics prove that it was not. If the skeptics could not then the war must go on—to end it would be recklessly risking the national security.”

Fulbright realized that Washington’s resident crazies had turned the world inside out by concluding, “We come to the ultimate illogic: war is the course of prudence and sobriety until the case for peace is proved under impossible rules of evidence [or never]–or until the enemy surrenders. Rational men cannot deal with each other on this basis.” But these were not rational men and their need to further their irrational quest only increased with the loss of the Vietnam War.

Having long forgotten the lessons of Vietnam and after a tragic repeat in Iraq that the highly respected General William Odom considered “equivalent to the Germans at Stalingrad,” the crazies are at it again. With no one to stop them, they have kicked off an updated version of the Cold War against Russia as if nothing had changed since the last one ended in 1992. The original Cold War was immensely expensive to the United States and was conducted at the height of America’s military and financial power. The United States is no longer that country. Since it was supposedly about the ideological “threat” of Communism, Americans need to ask before it’s too late exactly what kind of threat does a Capitalist/Christian Russia pose to the leader of the “Free World” this time?

Muddying the waters in a way not seen since Senator Joe McCarthy and the height of the Red Scare in the 1950s, the “Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act” signed into law without fanfare by Obama in December 2016 officially authorizes a government censorship bureaucracy comparable only to George Orwell’s fictional Ministry of Truth in his novel 1984. Referred to as “The Global Engagement Center,” the official purpose of the new bureaucracy will be to “recognize, understand, expose, and counter foreign state and non-state propaganda and disinformation efforts aimed at undermining United States national security interests.” But the real purpose of this totally Orwellian Center will be to manage, eliminate or censor any dissenting views that challenge Washington’s newly manufactured version of the truth and to intimidate, harass or jail anyone who tries. Criminalizing dissent is nothing new in time of war, but after 16 years of ceaseless warfare in Afghanistan, a Stalingrad–like defeat in Iraq and with Henry Kissinger advising President Trump on foreign policy, the Global Engagement Center has already assumed the characteristics of a dangerous farce.

The brilliant American satirical songwriter of the 1950s and 60s Tom Lehrer once attributed his early retirement to Henry Kissinger, saying “Political satire became obsolete [in 1973] when Henry Kissinger was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.” Kissinger’s duplicitous attempts at securing an “honorable peace” in America’s war in Vietnam deserved at least ridicule. His long, drawn out negotiations extended the war for four years at the cost of 22,000 American lives and countless Vietnamese. According to University of California researcher Larry Berman, author of 2001’s No Peace, No Honor: Nixon, Kissinger, and Betrayal in Vietnam, the Paris peace accords negotiated by Kissinger were never even expected to work, but were only to serve as a justification for a brutal and permanent air war once they were violated. Berman writes, “Nixon recognized that winning the peace, like the war would be impossible to achieve, but he planned for indefinite stalemate by using the B 52s to prop up the government of South Vietnam until the end of his presidency… but Watergate derailed the plan.”

The Vietnam War had broken the eastern establishment’s hold over foreign policy long before Nixon and Kissinger’s entry onto the scene. Détente with the Soviet Union had come about during the Johnson administration in an effort to bring some order out of the chaos and Kissinger had carried it through Nixon and Ford. But while dampening one crisis, détente created an even worse one by breaking open the longstanding internal-deep-state-struggle for control of U.S. policy toward the Soviet Union. Vietnam represented more than just a strategic defeat; it represented a conceptual failure in the half-century battle to contain Soviet-style Communism. The Pentagon Papers revealed the extent of the U.S. government’s deceit and incompetence but rather than concede that defeat and chart a new course, its proponents fought back with a Machiavellian ideological campaign known as the experiment in competitive analysis or for short; Team B.

Writing in the Los Angeles Times in August 2004 in an article titled It’s Time to Bench “Team B”, Lawrence J. Korb, a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress and assistant secretary of defense from 1981 to 1985 came forward on what he knew to be the real tragedy represented by 9/11. “The reports of the Sept. 11 commission and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence missed the real problem facing the intelligence community, which is not organization or culture but something known as the “Team B” concept. And the real villains are the hard-liners who created the concept out of an unwillingness to accept the unbiased and balanced judgments of intelligence professionals.”

Most Americans outside of Washington policy circles don’t know about Team B, where it came from or what it did, nor are they aware of its roots in the Fourth International, the Trotskyist branch of the Communist International. Lawrence J. Korb, a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress and assistant secretary of defense from 1981 to 1985 attributed the intelligence failure represented by 9/11 to Team B and had this to say about it in a 2004 article for the Los Angeles Times.

“The roots of the problem go back to May 6, 1976, when the director of Central Intelligence, George H.W. Bush, created the first Team B… The concept of a “competitive analysis” of the data done by an alternative team had been opposed by William Colby, Bush’s predecessor as CIA director and a career professional… Although the Team B report contained little factual data it was enthusiastically received by conservative groups such as the Committee on the Present Danger. But the report turned out to be grossly inaccurate… Team B was right about one thing. The CIA estimate was indeed flawed. But it was flawed in the other direction.”

Korb went on to explain that a 1978 Senate Select Committee on Intelligence review concluded; “that the selection of Team B members had yielded a flawed composition of political views and biases. And a 1989 review concluded that the Soviet threat had been ‘substantially overestimated’ in the CIA’s annual intelligence estimates… Still, the failure of Team B in 1976 did not deter the hard-liners from challenging the CIA’s judgments for the next three decades.”

Now long forgotten, the origins of the Team B “problem” actually stretched back to the radical political views and biases of James Burnham, his association with the Communist Revolutionary Leon Trotsky and the creation of powerful eastern establishment ad hoc groups; the Committee on the Present Danger and the American Security Council. From the outset of the Cold War in the late 1940s an odd coalition of ex-Trotskyist radicals and right wing business associations had lobbied heavily for big military budgets, advanced weapons systems and aggressive action to confront Soviet Communism. Vietnam was intended to prove the brilliance of their theories, but as described by author Fred Kaplan, “Vietnam brought out the dark side of nearly everyone inside America’s national security machine. And it exposed something seamy and disturbing about the very enterprise of the defense intellectuals. It revealed that the concept of force underlying all their formulations and scenarios was an abstraction, practically useless as a guide to action.” (Wizards of Armageddon page. 336) Kaplan ends by writing “The disillusionment for some became nearly total.” Vietnam represented more than just a strategic defeat for America’s defense intellectuals; it represented a conceptual failure in the half-century battle to contain Soviet-style Communism but for Team B, that disillusionment represented the opportunity of a lifetime.

Trotskyist Intellectuals become The New York Intellectuals become Defense Intellectuals

Populated by an inbred class of former Trotskyist intellectuals, the Team B approach represented a radical transformation of America’s national security bureaucracy into a new kind of elitist cult. In the 1960s Robert McNamara’s numbers and statistics justified bad policy decisions, now personal agendas and ethnic grudges would turn American foreign policy into an ideological crusade. Today those in control of that crusade fight desperately to maintain their grip, but only by de-encrypting the evolution of this secret “double government” can anyone understand America’s unrelenting post-Vietnam drift into despotism over the last 40 years.

Rooted in what can only be described as cult thinking, the Team B experiment tore down what was left of the CIA’s pre-Vietnam professional objectivity by subjecting it to politicization. Earlier in the decade, the CIA’s Office of Strategic Research (OSR) had been pressured by Nixon and Kissinger to corrupt their analysis to justify increased defense spending but the Team B’s ideological focus and partisan makeup so exaggerated the threat, the process could never return to normal.

The campaign was driven by the Russophobic neoconservative cabal which included Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Pipes, Richard Perle and a handful of old anti-Soviet hardliners like Paul Nitze and General Danny Graham. It began with a 1974 article in the Wall Street Journal by the famed nuclear strategist and former Trotskyist Albert Wohlstetter decrying America’s supposed nuclear vulnerability. It ended 2 years later with a ritualistic bloodletting at the CIA, signaling that ideology and not fact-based analysis had gained an exclusive hold on America’s bureaucracy.

The ideology referred to as Neoconservatism can claim many godfathers if not godmothers. Roberta Wohlstetter’s reputation as one of RAND’s preeminent Cold Warriors was equal to her husband’s. The couple’s infamous parties at their Santa Monica home acted as a kind of initiation rite for the rising class of “defense intellectual”. But the title of founding-father might best be applied to James Burnham. A convert from Communist revolutionary Leon Trotsky’s inner circle, Burnham’s 1941, The Managerial Revolution and 1943’s The Machiavellians: Defenders of Freedom championed the anti-democratic takeover then occurring in Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy while in1945’s Lenin’s Heir he switched his admiration, if only tongue in cheek, from Trotsky to Stalin.

George Orwell criticized Burnham’s cynical elitist vision in his 1946 essay Second Thoughts on James Burnham, writing “What Burnham is mainly concerned to show [in The Machiavellians] is that a democratic society has never existed and, so far as we can see, never will exist. Society is of its nature oligarchical, and the power of the oligarchy always rests upon force and fraud… Power can sometimes be won and maintained without violence, but never without fraud.”

Orwell is said to have modelled his novel 1984 on Burnham’s vision of the coming totalitarian state which he described as “a new kind of society, neither capitalist nor Socialist, and probably based upon slavery.”

As a Princeton and Oxford educated English scholar (one of his professor’s at Balliol College was J.R.R Tolkien) Burnham landed a position as a writer and an instructor in the philosophy department at New York University just in time for the 1929 Wall Street crash. Although initially uninterested in politics and hostile to Marxism, by 1931Burnham had become radicalized by the Great Depression and alongside fellow NYU philosophy instructor Sidney Hook, drawn to Marxism.

Burnham found Trotsky’s use of “dialectical materialism” to explain the interplay between the human and the historical forces in his History of the Russian Revolution to be brilliant. His subsequent review of Trotsky’s book would bring the two men together and begin for Burnham a six year odyssey through America’s Communist left that would in this strange saga, ultimately transform him into the agent of its destruction.

As founder of the Red Army and a firebrand Marxist, Trotsky had dedicated his life to the spread of a worldwide Communist revolution. Stalin opposed Trotsky’s views as too ambitious and the power struggle that followed Lenin’s death splintered the party. By their very nature the Trotskyists were expert at infighting, infiltration and disruption. Burnham reveled in his role as a Trotskyist intellectual and the endless debates over the fundamental principle of Communism (dialectical materialism) behind Trotsky’s crusade. The Communist Manifesto approved the tactic of subverting larger and more populist political parties (entrism) and following Trotsky’s expulsion from the Communist party in November 1927, his followers exploited it. The most well-known example of entrism was the so called “French Turn” when in 1934 the French Trotskyists entered the much larger French Socialist Party the SFIO with the intention of winning over the more militant elements to their side.

That same year the American followers of Trotsky in the Communist League of America, the CLA did a French turn on the American Workers Party, the AWP in a move that elevated the AWP’s James Burnham into the role of a Trotsky lieutenant and chief advisor.

Burnham liked the toughness of the Bolsheviks and despised the weakness of the liberals. According to his biographer Daniel Kelly, “He took great pride in what he saw as its hard-headed view of the world in contrast to philosophies rooted in ‘dreams and illusions.’” He also delighted in the tactics of infiltrating and subverting other leftist parties and in 1935 “fought tirelessly for the French turn” of another and far larger Socialist Party the SP some twenty thousand strong. The Trotskyists intended “to capture its left wing and its youth division, the Young People’s Socialist League (YPSL),” Kelly writes “and take the converts with them when they left.”

Burnham remained a “Trotskyist Intellectual” from 1934 until 1940. But although he labored six years for the party, it was said of him that he was never of the party and as the new decade began he renounced both Trotsky and “the ‘philosophy of Marxism’ dialectical materialism” altogether. He summed up his feelings in a letter of resignation on May 21, 1940. “Of the most important beliefs, which have been associated with the Marxist Movement, whether in its reformist, Leninist, Stalinist or Trotskyist variants, there is virtually none which I accept in its traditional form. I regard these beliefs as either false or obsolete or meaningless; or in a few cases, as at best true only in a form so restricted and modified as no longer properly to be called Marxist.”

In 1976 Burnham wrote to a legendary secret agent whom biographer Kelly referred to as “the British political analyst Brian Crozier” that he had never swallowed dialectical materialism or the ideology of Marxism but was merely being pragmatic given the rise of Hitler and the Depression.

But given the influential role Burnham would come to play in creating the new revolutionary class of neoconservatives, and their central role in using Trotsky’s tactics to lobby against any relationship with the Soviet Union, it’s hard to believe Burnham’s involvement with Trotsky’s Fourth International was only an intellectual exercise in pragmatism

Part 3 – How the CIA Created a Fake Western Reality for ‘Unconventional Warfare’

The odd, psychologically conflicted and politically divisive ideology referred to as Neoconservatism can claim many godfathers. Irving Kristol, father of William Kristol, Albert Wohlstetter, Daniel Bell, Norman Podhoretz and Sidney Hook come to mind and there are many others. But in both theory and its practice the title of founding-father of the neoconservative agenda of endless warfare that rules the thinking of America’s defense and foreign policies today might best be applied to James Burnham.

His writings in the 1930s provided a refined Oxford intellectual’s gloss to the Socialist Workers party and as a close advisor to Communist revolutionary Leon Trotsky and his Fourth International he learned the tactics and strategies of infiltration and political subversion first hand. Burnham reveled in his role as a “Trotskyist intellectual” pulling dirty tricks on his political foes in competing Marxist movements by turning their loyalties and looting their best talent.

Burnham renounced his allegiance to Trotsky and Marxism in all its forms in1940 but he would take their tactics and strategies for infiltration and subversion with him and would turn their method of dialectical materialism against them. His 1941book The Managerial Revolution would bring him fame and fortune and establish him as an astute, if not exactly accurate political prophet chronicling the rise of a new class of technocratic elite. His next book The Machiavellians would confirm his movement away from Marxist idealism to a very cynical and often cruel realism with his belief in the inevitable failure of democracy and the rise of the oligarch. In 1943 he would put it all to use in a memo for the U.S. Office of Strategic Services the OSS in which his Trotskyist anti-Stalinism would find its way into the agency’s thinking. And in his 1947 book The Struggle for the World, Burnham would expand his confrontational/adversarial dialectic toward the Soviet Union into a permanent, apocalyptic policy of endless war. By 1947 James Burnham’s transformation from Communist radical to New World Order American conservative was complete. His Struggle for the World had done a French Turn on Trotsky’s permanent Communist revolution and turned it into a permanent battle plan for a global American empire. All that was needed to complete Burnham’s dialectic was a permanent enemy and that would require a sophisticated psychological campaign to keep the hatred of Russia alive for generations.

The rise of the Machiavellians

In 1939 Sidney Hook, Burnham’s colleague at NYU and fellow Marxist philosopher had helped to found an anti-Stalinist Committee for Cultural Freedom as part of a campaign against Moscow. During the war Hook too had abandoned Marxism and like Burnham somehow found himself in the warm embrace of the right-wing of America’s intelligence community during and after World War II. Hook was viewed by the Communist Party as a traitor and “counter-revolutionary reptile” for his activities and by 1942 was informing on his fellow comrades to the FBI.

Selling impoverished and dispossessed European elites on the virtues of American culture was essential to building America’s empire after the war and Burnham’s early writings proved the inspiration from which a new counter-culture of “Freedom” would be built. As veterans of internecine Trotskyist warfare both Burnham and Hook were practiced at the arts of infiltration and subversion and with Burnham’s TheMachiavellians: Defenders of Freedom as their blueprint they set out to color anything the Soviets did or said with dark intent.

As Burnham articulated clearly in his Machiavellians, his version of Freedom meant anything but intellectual freedom or those freedoms defined by America’s Constitution. What it really meant was conformity and submission. Burnham’s Freedom only applied to those intellectuals (the Machiavellians) willing to tell people the hard truth about the unpopular political realities they faced. These were the realities that would usher in a brave new world of the managerial class who would set about denying Americans the very democracy they thought they already owned. As Orwell observed about Burnham’s Machiavellian beliefs in his 1946 Second Thoughts, “Power can sometimes be won or maintained without violence, but never without fraud, because it is necessary to use the masses…”

By 1949 the CIA was actively in the business of defrauding the masses by secretly supporting the so called non-Communist left and behaving as if it was just a spontaneous outgrowth of a free society. By turning the left to the service of its expanding empire the CIA was applying a French Turn of its own by picking the best and the brightest and the creation of the National Security State in 1947 institutionalized it. Assisted by Britain’s Information Research Department the IRD, the CIA recruited key former Soviet disinformation agents trained before the war who had managed non-Communist front groups for Moscow and put them to work. As Frances Stoner Saunders writes in her book, The Cultural Cold War, “these former propagandists for the Soviets were recycled, bleached of the stain of Communism, embraced by government strategists who saw in their conversion an irresistible opportunity to sabotage the Soviet propaganda machine which they had once oiled.”

By its own admission the CIA’s strategy of promoting the non-Communist left would become the theoretical foundation of the Agency’s political operations against Communism for over the next two decades. But the no holds barred cultural war against Soviet Communism began in earnest in March 1949 when a group of 800 prominent literary and artistic figures gathered at New York’s Waldorf Astoria Hotel for a Soviet sponsored “Cultural and Scientific” conference that would sue for peace. Both Sydney Hook and James Burnham were already actively involved in enlisting recruits to counter Moscow’s Communist Information Bureau’s (Cominform) efforts to influence Western Opinion. But the Waldorf conference gave them an opportunity for dirty tricks they could only have prayed for.

Demonstrators organized by a right-wing coalition of Catholic groups and the American legion heckled the guests as they arrived. Catholic nuns knelt in prayer for the souls of the Communist atheists in attendance. Gathered upstairs in a tenth floor bridal suite a gang of ex-Trotskyists and Communists led by Hook intercepted the conference’s mail, doctored official press releases and published pamphlets challenging speakers to admit their Communist past.

In the end the entire conference became a twisted theatre of the absurd and Hook and Burnham would use it to sell Frank Wisner at the CIA’s Office of Policy Coordination on taking the show on the road.

The Congress for Cultural Freedom: By Hook or by Crook

Drawing on the untapped power of the Fourth International, the coming out party came on June 26, 1950 at the Titania Palace in occupied Berlin. Named for Hook’s 1939 concept for a cultural committee, The Congress for Cultural Freedom’s fourteen-point “Freedom Manifesto” was to identify the West with freedom. And since everything about the West was said to be free, free, free then it went without saying everything about the Soviet Union wasn’t.

Organized by Burnham and Hook, the American delegation represented a who’s who of America’s post war intellectuals. Tickets to Berlin were paid for by Wisner’s Office of Policy Coordination through front organizations as well as the Department of State which helped arrange travel, expenses and publicity. According to CIA Historian Michael Warner the conference’s sponsor’s considered it money well spent with one Defense Department representative calling it “unconventional warfare at its best.”

Burnham functioned as a critical connection between Wisner’s office and the intelligentsia moving from the extreme left to the extreme right with ease. Burnham found the Congress to be a place to inveigh not just against Communism but against the non-communist left as well and left many wondering whether his views weren’t as dangerous to liberal democracy as Communism. According to Frances Stoner Saunders, members of the British delegation found the rhetoric coming out of the Congress to be a deeply troubling sign of things to come. “Hugh Trevor-Roper was appalled by the provocative tone… ‘There was a speech by Franz Borkenau which was very violent and indeed almost hysterical. He spoke in German and I regret to say that as I listened and I heard the baying voices of approval from the huge audiences, I felt, well, these are the same people who seven years ago were probably baying in the same way to similar German denunciations of Communism coming from Dr. Goebbels in the Sports Palast. And I felt, well, what sort of people are we identifying with? That was the greatest shock to me. There was a moment during the Congress when I felt that we were being invited to summon up Beelzebub in order to defeat Stalin.’”

The Congress for Cultural Freedom didn’t need Beelzebub, it already had him in the form of Burnham, Hook and Wisner and by 1952 the party was just getting started. Burnham worked overtime for Wisner legitimizing the Congress as a platform for the Machiavellians alongside ex-Communists and even Nazis, including SS General Reinhard Gehlen and his German Army intelligence unit which had been brought into the CIA after the war, intact. E. Howard Hunt, Watergate “plumber” famous as a CIA dirty trickster remembered Burnham in his memoirs, “Burnham was a consultant to OPC on virtually every subject of interest to our organization… He had extensive contacts in Europe and, by virtue of his Trotskyite background, was something of an authority on domestic and foreign Communist parties and front organizations.”

In 1953 Burnham was called upon again by Wisner to reach beyond Communism to help overthrow the democratically elected Mohammed Mossadegh in Teheran apparently because Wisner thought the plan needed “a touch of Machiavelli.” But Burnham’s greatest contribution as a Machiavellian was yet to come. His book The Machiavellians: Defenders of Freedom would become the CIA’s manual for displacing Western culture with an alternative doctrine for endless conflict in a world of oligarchs and in the end open the gates to an Inferno from which there would be no return.

Part 4 – The Final Stage of the Machiavellian Elites’ Takeover of America

From Trotsky to Burnham, from Burnham to Machiavelli and Machiavelli to neoconservatism, the circle of British imperialism closes

The recent assertion by the Trump White House that Damascus and Moscow released “false narratives” to mislead the world about the April 4 Sarin gas attack in Khan Shaykhun, Syria is a dangerous next step in the “fake news” propaganda war launched in the final days of the Obama administration. It is a step whose deep roots in Communist Trotsky’s Fourth International must be understood before deciding whether American democracy can be reclaimed.

Muddying the waters of accountability in a way not seen since Senator Joe McCarthy at the height of the Red Scare in the 1950s, the “Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act” signed into law without fanfare by Obama in December 2016 officially authorized a government censorship bureaucracy comparable only to George Orwell’s fictional Ministry of Truth in his novel 1984. Referred to as “The Global Engagement Center,” the official purpose of this new bureaucracy is to “recognize, understand, expose, and counter foreign state and non-state propaganda and disinformation efforts aimed at undermining United States national security interests.” The real purpose of this Orwellian nightmare is to cook the books on anything that challenges Washington’s neoconservative pro war narrative and to intimidate, harass or jail anyone who tries. As has already been demonstrated by President Trump’s firing of Tomahawk missiles at a Syrian government airbase, it is a recipe for a world war and like it or not, that war has already begun.

This latest attack on Russia’s supposed false narrative takes us right back to 1953 and the beginnings of the cultural war between East and West. Its roots are tied to the Congress for Cultural Freedom, to James Burnham’s pivot from Trotsky’s Fourth International to right-wing conservatism and to the rise of the neoconservative Machiavellians as a political force. As James Burnham’s The Struggle for the World stressed, the Third World War had already begun with the 1944 Communist-led Greek sailors’ revolt. In Burnham’s Manichean thinking the West was under siege. George Kennan’s Cold War policy of containment was no different than Neville Chamberlain’s policy of appeasement. Détente with the Soviet Union amounted to surrender. Peace was only a disguise for war and that war would be fought with politics, subversion, terrorism and psychological warfare. Soviet influence had to be rolled back wherever possible. That meant subverting the Soviet Union and its proxies and when necessary, subverting Western democracies as well.

The true irony of today’s late stage efforts by Washington to monopolize “truth” and attack alternate narratives isn’t just in its blatant contempt for genuine free speech. The real irony is that the entire “Freedom Manifesto” employed by the United States and Britain since World War II was never free at all; but a concoction of the CIA’s Psychological Strategy Board’s (PSB) comprehensive psychological warfare program waged on friend and foe alike.

The CIA would come to view the entire program beginning with the 1950 Berlin conference to be a landmark in the Cold War not just for solidifying the CIA’s control over the non-Communist left and the West’s “free” intellectuals, but for enabling the CIA to secretly disenfranchise Europeans and Americans from their own political culture in such a way they would never really know it.

As historian Christopher Lasch wrote in 1969 of the CIA’s cooptation of the American left, “The modern state… is an engine of propaganda, alternately manufacturing crises and claiming to be the only instrument that can effectively deal with them. This propaganda, in order to be successful, demands the cooperation of writers, teachers, and artists not as paid propagandists or state-censored time-servers but as ‘free’ intellectuals capable of policing their own jurisdictions and of enforcing acceptable standards of responsibility within the various intellectual professions.”

Key to turning these “free” intellectuals against their own interests was the CIA’s doctrinal program for Western cultural transformation contained in the document PSB D-33/2. PSB D-33/2 foretells of a “long-term intellectual movement, to: break down world-wide doctrinaire thought patterns” while “creating confusion, doubt and loss of confidence” in order to “weaken objectively the intellectual appeal of neutralism and to predispose its adherents towards the spirit of the West;” to “predispose local elites to the philosophy held by the planners,” while employing local elites “would help to disguise the American origin of the effort so that it appears to be a native development.”

While declaring itself as an antidote to Communist totalitarianism, one internal critic of the Program, PSB officer Charles Burton Marshall, viewed PSB D-33/2 itself as frighteningly totalitarian, interposing “a wide doctrinal system” that “accepts uniformity as a substitute for diversity,” embracing “all fields of human thought – all fields of intellectual interests, from anthropology and artistic creations to sociology and scientific methodology;” concluding, “That is just about as totalitarian as one can get.”

Burnham’s Machiavellian elitism lurks in every shadow of the document. As recounted in Frances Stoner Saunder’s The Cultural Cold War, “Marshall also took issue with the PSB’s reliance on ‘non-rational social theories’ which emphasized the role of an elite ‘in the manner reminiscent of Pareto, Sorel, Mussolini and so on.’ Weren’t these the models used by James Burnham in his book the Machiavellians? Perhaps there was a copy usefully to hand when PSB D-33/2 was being drafted. More likely, James Burnham himself was usefully to hand.”

Burnham was more than just at hand when it came to secretly implanting a fascist philosophy of extreme elitism into America’s Cold War orthodoxy. With The Machiavellians, Burnham had composed the manual that forged the old Trotskyist left together with a right-wing Anglo/American elite. The political offspring of that volatile union would be called neoconservatism whose overt mission would be to roll back Russian/Soviet influence everywhere. Its covert mission would be to reassert a British cultural dominance over the emerging Anglo/American Empire and maintain it through propaganda.

Hard at work on that task since 1946 was the secret Information Research Department of the British and Commonwealth Foreign Office known as the IRD.

Rarely spoken of in the context of CIA-funded secret operations, the IRD served as a covert anti-Communist propaganda unit from 1946 until 1977. According to Paul Lashmar and James Oliver, authors of Britain’s Secret Propaganda War, “the vast IRD enterprise had one sole aim: To spread its ceaseless propaganda output (i.e. a mixture of outright lies and distorted facts) among top-ranking journalists who worked for major agencies and magazines, including Reuters and the BBC, as well as every other available channel. It worked abroad to discredit communist parties in Western Europe which might gain a share of power by entirely democratic means, and at home to discredit the British Left”.

IRD was to become a self-fulfilling disinformation machine for the far-right-wing of the international intelligence elite, at once offering fabricated and distorted information to “independent” news outlets and then using the laundered story as “proof” of the false story’s validity. One such front enterprise established with CIA money was Forum World Features, operated at one time by Burnham acolyte Brian Rossiter Crozier. Described by Burnham’s biographer Daniel Kelly as a “British political analyst” in reality the legendary Brian Crozier functioned for over fifty years as one of Britain’s top propagandists and secret agents.

If anyone today is shocked by the biased, one-sided, xenophobic rush to judgement alleging Russian influence over the 2016 presidential election, they need look no further than to Brian Crozier’s closet for the blueprints. As we were told outright by an American military officer during the first war in Afghanistan in 1982, the U.S. didn’t need “proof the Soviets used poison gas” and they don’t need proof against Russia now. Crozier might best be described as a daydream believer, a dangerous imperialist who acts out his dreams with open eyes. From the beginning of the Cold War until his death in 2012 Crozier and his protégé Robert Moss propagandized on behalf of military dictators Francisco Franco and Augusto Pinochet, organized private intelligence organizations to destabilize governments in the Middle East, Asia, Latin America and Africa and worked to delegitimize politicians in Europe and Britain viewed as insufficiently anti-Communist. The mandate of his Institute for the Study of Conflict (ISC) set up in 1970 was to expose the supposed KGB campaign of worldwide subversion and put out stories smearing anyone who questioned it as a dupe, a traitor or Communist spy. Crozier regarded The Machiavellians as a major formative influence in his own intellectual development, and wrote in 1976 “indeed it was this book above all others that first taught me how [emphasis Crozier] to think about politics”. The key to Crozier’s thinking was Burnham’s distinction between the “formal” meaning of political speech and the “real”, a concept which was of course grasped only by elites. In a 1976 article Crozier marveled at how Burnham’s understanding of politics had spanned 600 years and how the use of “the formal” to conceal “the real” was no different today than when used by Dante Alighieri’s “presumably enlightened Medieval mind.” “The point is as valid now as it was in ancient times and in the Florentine Middle Ages, or in 1943. Overwhelmingly, political writers and speakers still use Dante’s method. Depending on the degree of obfuscation required (either by circumstances or the person’s character), the divorce between formal and real meaning is more of less absolute.”

But Crozier was more than just a strategic thinker. Crozier was a high level covert political agent who put Burnham’s talent for obfuscation and his Fourth International experience to use to undermine détente and set the stage for rolling back the Soviet Union.

In a secret meeting at a City of London bank in February 1977 he even patented a private sector operational intelligence organization known at the 6th International (6I) to pick up where Burnham left off; politicizing and of course privatizing many of the dirty tricks the CIA and other intelligence services could no longer be caught doing. As he explained in his memoir Free Agent, the name 6I was chosen “Because the Fourth International split. The Fourth International was the Trotskyist one, and when it split, this meant that, on paper there were five Internationals. In the numbers game, we would constitute the Sixth International, or ‘6I’”.

Croziers cooperation with numerous “able and diligent Congressional staffers” as well as “the remarkable General Vernon (‘Dick’) Walters, recently retired as Deputy Director of Central Intelligence,..” cemented the rise of the neoconservatives. When Carter caved in to the Team B and his neoconservative National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski’s plot to lure the Soviets and into their own Vietnam in Afghanistan it fulfilled Burnham’s mission and delivered the world to the Machiavellians without anyone being the wiser. As George Orwell wrote in his Second Thoughts on James Burnham, “What Burnham is mainly concerned to show [in The Machiavellians] is that a democratic society has never existed and, so far as we can see, never will exist. Society is of its nature oligarchical, and the power of the oligarchy always rests upon force and fraud… Power can sometimes be won and maintained without violence, but never without fraud.”

Today Burnham’s use of Dante’s political Treatise, De Monarchia to explain his Medieval understanding of politics might best be swapped for Dante’s Divine Comedy, a paranoid comedy of errors in which the door to hell swings open to one and all, including the elites regardless of their status. Or as they say in Hell, Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch’intrate. Abandon hope all ye who enter here.

This article was very well referenced. I read it through and find it very well researched. Reading supporting materials is crucial. Observer, If you need a reference to Isreal, read the linked CIA document reg. Indoctrination Program. You will find it there. Read it all before drawing conclusions.

Saker, a well researched and documented article, that contains many not easy to find items regarding the US Intelligence Beast. The authors would do well to expand and connect a few more dots, as we leap from 1950s to 1970s here with a few missing connections.

Also, overlaying this with the first half of the Devils Chessboard by David Talbot (aka Allen Dulles and his rabid anti-communism) and “Operation Sunrise”, a more clear picture of the disease of Washington and NeoCons becomes more clear.

That “Miles W Mathis” entity is a remarkable site. It mixes real info with the stupidest of trash and falsehoods. Almost certainly one of many (CIA) disinfo sites with which they try to confuse and discredit the truth.

That this very informative article doesn’t mention Roth-child led Pharisaic Talmudism is only good. It is or should be obvious anyway that the Jewish mob – they really grabbed power with their trans-Atlantic slave trade-exploitation – is synonymous with Trotskyite Jewish Bolsheviks, Nazis, Fabians, Neocons, Anglo-Zionists, the British Empire, and so forth.

They typically pretend to be the exact opposite of what they really are (Orwellian Newspeak), and because they control the ‘money’ press (banks), they could take over virtually the whole system. They invariably had/have a considerable following of opportunistic house negros, no-account thugs, and a flock of sheeple, because they also own the Lügenpresse.

Skimming through these articles, red flags kept coming up. For example, at random, this example selected of several on the cia:

“Rooted in what can only be described as cult thinking, the Team B experiment tore down what was left of the CIA’s pre-Vietnam professional objectivity by subjecting it to politicization.”

The cia was subjected politicization from it’s inception and it’s “intelligence” results were always heavily corrupted by political engineering. “You tell us the political objective, we will provide the false flags and all the rest of the horseshit needed to make it fly’s would be an honest motto for the cia.

Anyone who has read the material of cia whistleblowers would not write that sort of propagandistic toss about the cia having an era of “good ole days” before the evul commies got to ’em.

Wow,an awesome set of articles. An unholy alliance to create the neo-con movement made up of fascist oligarchical interests,East European emigres,Zionist secular Jews.Who were fueled in part by a hatred of Russia dating to the Tsarist period.And by another part fueled by hatred of Russia because the USSR eliminated Jews from the heights of power in Communism.Mixing all those together,and adding in US “exceptionalism” has created a toxic “witch’s brew” to poison the World. Russia and the World hasn’t faced as great a threat since the fateful year of 1941.

The beauty of the comments sections on blogs is that one can say almost anything. Specially if one posts as an Anon like you.

In ‘real life’ things are a slightly more complicated and spelling out words like ‘Jew’, ‘Jewish’ and ‘Zionist’ in the public domain is considered to be worse than black magic, the crime of crimes: lese majesty, and is therefore strictly taboo.

This of course is very regrettable, but at least we have thus found out who the real Majesty is, even if we have to keep this knowledge to ourselves.

As did our fathers and forefathers for longer than anyone can remember. Many were pulled down by this knowledge, got frustrated, depressed and whatnot, while the bravest and most intelligent among them used it as a wake up call to live rich and fulfilling lives.

_smr, I assume you must be referring to the first comment, and I’d just like to add to your critique.

First of all, Anony-mouse should reserve their smirking critique of Part 1 until after reading parts 2,3 and 4 and see if the authors are cover up artists for the worst so called “jewish” fascists and Talmudo-Satanists or not .

I say so, for the following reasons:

1. Some stupid bulls have got a preference for one and only one Oligarchical Matador’s cape “color” and insist on tossing their horns ineffectually forever at that color of cape–evidence–only, either because they are just plain blind (for example, to all the extensive documentation that is provided in this Part 1) to all but one color of “evidence” or they are witting agents assigned the task of creating whole herds of more stupid bulls who will also toss their horns ineffectually, until deftly slaughtered in the end.

2. Some young (political) bulls can be taught a few things and saved. Maybe even this Anony-mouse. Unless Anony-mouse is a witting agent of AZ Empire, that is.

3. I’ll give Anonymouse the benefit of the doubt. The Zionist program of global imperial mind control employing the conceptual fulcrom point of “religious” irrationalism and the geographical fulcrom pointof the Middle East “Holy Land”, ZION, etc “Crossroads of Eurasia” —-“The World-Island” in British Imperial Geopolitics terms in its origins is British/British -Israelite to its very core. Part One of a Four Part Series need not wave your favorite cape in front of your blood red bull’s eyes and be dismissed because you are missing your favorite color. Patience! Your favorite whipping boys may get their day. Meanwhile, pay attention and learn something: How British Brains are the head of the AZ Empire and how they deploy and play their dumb American Giant on a British Leash and their Isreali slaves and Zionist slaves, worldwide.

4. As I have said several times on this site (and backed it up with plenty of evidence……..) “It’s the British, Stupid!”. And if you (we, humanity) refuse to see that out of preference for tossing your horns at your favorite color of cape, instead of figuring out who owns the bull ring and the matador, not only will those who aspire for freedom be too stupid to earn it, they will be dead.

Thanks, Bro 93. Agree with most of what you say, but think that your key point – It’s the British, Stupid! – needs to be looked further into.

All recent papers by Miles Mathis elucidate that it was exactly Britain, that was the main target of the Jewish/Zionist oligarchs infiltration into upper echelons of the European power structure.

Thanks to their financial power, Miles Mathis lays out in case study after case study – mostly done by genealogical research, by the way – the Jewish financiers were able to intermarry with dozens of the peers top families, without anyone noticing.

To make it short: Most of the family names that we recognize as pedigree British have turned crypto-Jewish way back in the 15th, 16th, 17th century.

I have very strong doubts about this version of the neoconservative rise to prominence or even dominance of US political institutions. To trace its rise to a single individual (and a foreigner to boot) supported by another (also a foreigner of the same variety (English) seems to have a specific design of obscuring the true path.

Besides, the emphasis on former Trotsies as the precursors of neocons fails to make the necessary connection with the neoliberal ideological drive for oligarchic globalism. Trotsies were known to be unrepentant double-dealers and opportunists but even the vilest of them would baulk at working for a corporate new world order ruled by the US empire. Unless they were all like Burnham – amoral demagogues for hire, in other words, lower than common prostitutes.

I could write a long essay to poke large holes into this version of the neocon ascendency and suggest a simpler version based on the structural dynamics of the capitalist transformation from a parochial industrial model with reduced capacity for expansion to a financial global model which requires the dismantling of the traditional nation-state. Of course the Burnhams and Croziers are the ideologues and operatives who do the footwork. But for whom? Who are the payers and handlers? Suggestions anyone?

Wahhabism was installed with the direct assistance of the British army in the 1920s by supporting the Al Saud family.

British currency, (including all Empire currency too eg Canadian, Australian, South African etc), was issued solely and entirely from 1826 by Roth-schild bank.

Since whoever creates a nation’s currency is technically the ruler of that nation, it is reasonable to say that Britain and the British Empire was a misnomer for the Roth-schild Empire.

Thus Roth-schild installed Wahhabism in Arabia in the 1920s.

And any agency active within Britain was technically a Roth-schild agency and NOT a British agency per se.

Other things you may not be aware of include the Roth-schild bank buying Jerusalem from the Ottoman sultan in 1829.

The City of London belongs to the Crown, eg the Queen of England, and it is therefore not a part of Britain. The Queen and her descendants let it in perpetuity, along with its own unique laws enforced by its own police force, to Roth-schild in perpetuity for the sole purpose of laundering their drug money profits.

Contrary to a popular, mostly foreign perception, the British aristocracy is well aware of the inter marriage of itself with rich Jews. Prince Harry seems on the point of marrying a black-jewess in point of fact.

Without intermarriage with Jews the British aristocracy would have spent itself out of existence many centuries ago. This is well known at all levels in Britain.

Thus this article is utter drivel because like all obfuscations perpetrated by the Roth-schilds it ignores the elephant in the room completely, just as does Saker.

We have a saying in England, ‘birds of a feather stick together’, consequently Saker’s persistence with the Jewish lie about National Socialism and his inability to publish anything about either Jews or Roth-schild clearly makes him highly suspect.

One last thing, to compare the martyred freedom fighters of National Socialist Germany with modern America is no different to comparing Zionist Neocons with the Buddha…infantile.

The ideology of neoconservatism is a euphemism for Russophobia. This article indicates the psychological coup that has captured U.S. society and its infrastructure of education, communication and policy development, as well as the farces called elections.

Yet, strangely, throughout the presentation very little connection is made to the great danger it portends and warns (the gates to hell–total war).

So, in this article we have the processes and the players, and the extensively detailed history of how the ideology became the core of the CIA.

Yet, missing is the relational database which would clearly establish that the Russophobia underlying the ideology is genocidal in intent. Nearly one hundred percent of the neoconservatives in the US and Britain are Khazarians by lineage and/or self-adoption.They urge and strive for the destruction and liquidation of Russia and Russians.

The Russian Revolution internecine wars, the chaos of World War I, the collapse of capitalism on the Continent, and the rise of Nazism drove thousands of emigres to Britain, Canada and the U.S.Nearly all were Khazarian by ideology.

With these converts to Anglo-American hierarchal values, especially within the intelligentsia, there was a fault-line that panicked them. They understood that the capitalist system had failed at economic stability and maintenance of peace. The touchstones of democracy and freedom were actually sulphuric in the minds of these intellectuals. And as industry, finance and military judged accurately, the Anglo-American leaders could not compete and win with their institutions. They had to cheat, destabilize and destroy any rival system.

So, fear and loathing was based on genocidal hatred of anything Russian but also, rational analysis that the opposing system to Communism or Socialism was itself fatally flawed.

The captains of industry (banking, finance, manufacturing, et al) never wanted competition. They seek monopoly. And World War taught them that infinite revenues could come their way endlessly if war was endless. The military trough would be full forever only if there was a chimera to stimulate the spending.

Ideology met technological innovation and “weapons development” became defense spending. And from those foundations arose the national security state. Permanent revenues, ever growing.

Neoconservatism became the Deep State. And always there was Russia.

Hatred, fear, envy, lies, false flags became the means to the Neoconservative end.

Their one advantage was they now controlled the US government. They populated the official transitory postings and the many layers of permanent postings. They filled all the surrounding think tanks, and they controlled all the academic posts. They owned the news media and the entertainment industry. They bought the Congress and controlled the polls and election process (including the TV debate system). They filled the courts at all levels. And by now, they had control of most of the largest populated states. Similarly, in Britain, the same processes occurred in that society.

Neoconservatism comes in two flavors in the US. Right wing and Liberal wing versions are different only by external labels. On all critical issues, they are unified.

For the last six months we have seen them wrestle the Presidential powers away from the duly elected office holder. The leverage they have used is Russophobia. They have that lever and will never cease to use it to control policy, personnel and endless war.

McMaster, Mattis, Tillerson, Pence, McCain, Graham, Pentagon, NSA, CIA, all wear the uniform of Neoconservatism. They are all infected with Russophobia and all are part of the tribe of Khazarians. Their allegiance to Zion, to the Hegemon, to militarism is well-established. They have the vassals of the EU and NATO as proxies, the vast radical Islamic proxy armies of ISIS and AQ al Nusra, and the Nazis of Ukraine and other Eastern Europe countries to use against Russia. And they have used them for at least four decades.

These are all inseparable elements. They are fused inside Neoconservatism. Born from Russophobia, nurtured by Khazarians and rewarded with wealth and power, the ideological tenants are foundationally genocidal. Destroy Russia, kill Russians, steal Russian resources. This is the core of Neoconservatism.

The quality of mercy is not strain’d,
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath: it is twice blest;
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes:
‘Tis mightiest in the mightiest: it becomes
The throned monarch better than his crown;
His sceptre shows the force of temporal power,
The attribute to awe and majesty,
Wherein doth sit the dread and fear of kings;

ANTONIO, earlier, must borrow:

“ANTONIO

Thou know’st that all my fortunes are at sea;
Neither have I money nor commodity
To raise a present sum: therefore go forth;
Try what my credit can in Venice do:
That shall be rack’d, even to the uttermost,
To furnish thee to Belmont, to fair Portia.
Go, presently inquire, and so will I,
Where money is, and I no question make
To have it of my trust or for my sake.”

Shylock, despised and self loathing, desires usurious increase and revenge to make up for his dying, shrinking soul:

SHYLOCK:

“He (Antonio, The Merchant of Venice) hath disgraced me, and hindered me half a million, laughed at my losses, mocked at my gains, scorned my nation, thwarted my bargains, cooled my friends, heated mine enemies; and what’s his reason? I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions? Fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer, as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?

If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that. If a Jew wrong a Christian, what is his humility? Revenge. If a Christian wrong a Jew, what should his sufferance be by Christian example? Why, revenge. The villainy you teach me I will execute, and it shall go hard but I will better the instruction.”

Ah, but who employ the “hofjuden” which Shylock is just a lonely, embittered wannabe imitation of?

The Empire, which has moved its headquarters around for a few thousand years. Same system. Different fall guys.

In addition the jews (often attached with the doubtful khazarian epithet), even the richest were being betrayed by the British allover the continent which prepared them to play the role they did in the Bolshevik revolution. There was the Dreyfuss-affair where the Rothschilds appeared openly as a sponsor for Esterhazy. Clearly the Rotschilds were covering for the more important party: the British. Otherwise it makes no sense why they wouldnt do a better job in hiding their role creating an antijewish uprising. How could that possibly be good for driving people into zionism and the Israel project?.
(Apparently one motive för that British plot was to prevent Gabriel Hanotaux’s progressive plans for developing the African economy – not looting it.)
There may have been pogroms but there is reason to ask who organized them and maybe just spread rumours. The previous operations by the British in Germany where they began stimulating the nazification of Germany over 50 years before Hitler was born and cultivated it all the way to Hitler’s rise created a fertile background for zionism and for recruiting jews as proxies and money from the jewish financiers.
The only thing the sheeple knew for sure was that hostility was rising. The infamous while prescient protocols which appeared in various versions from the the days of Palmerston in the 1850s and on, in France, the US and Russia were important stimulants for augmenting the tensions. Much later many where in good faith seeing the seemingly accurate predictions while nobody asked about whether maybe the British were the true originators. They didnt ask because Britains 19th century interference all over the continent and elsewhere has been blanked out from current establishment history.
The last version stamped in the British museum in 1906 pointed to Russia, clearly useful for those who were behind the revolution. Apparently the content was dictated by an anglophile member of the russian police. Britain had a vast degree of influence through freemasonic networks.
They managed to replace politicians in France and Russia with anglophiles of their choice, with crucial importance for provoking the WW1.

The Rothschildsare international bankers. The UK Crown and government are clients (ie creditors) of international bankers. A simple rule of thumb is all wars are banker wars – it is better for millions of poor to die in financial lucrative war than than a banker go bankrupt.

“Their one advantage was they now controlled the US government. They populated the official transitory postings and the many layers of permanent postings. They filled all the surrounding think tanks, and they controlled all the academic posts. They owned the news media and the entertainment industry. They bought the Congress and controlled the polls and election process (including the TV debate system). They filled the courts at all levels. And by now, they had control of most of the largest populated states. Similarly, in Britain, the same processes occurred in that society.”

That is totally true. I think many people miss the point. You don’t need to be in the “top” position. A “straw-man” can occupy that position,as long as your supporters hold the levers of power.That is the key to zionist and neo-con control in the US and Worldwide. If we look at the early USSR. We see that during the days of the most terror,those with Jewish backgrounds make up 38.5% of all positions. But they made up around 3% of the Soviet population. And the other 61.5% of repressive groups was divided among those with multiple ethnic backgrounds. Making those of Jewish background the leading element in the “repressive organs”. The same percentage (or larger at times) was true of all the state organs of the early USSR.That was the key to their control of the early USSR,and is true in the US today. Control the system through all the different levels of influence and you control the nation. You don’t need to be “President” if you can control “who” becomes President.We see the same today in many countries. Controlling the media,educational system,entertainment (TV and Hollywood),social media,Congress,think tanks,even the Churches through the Christian-zionist movement.And you have all the levers of power in a modern society under your control.

“Nearly one hundred percent of the neoconservatives in the US and Britain are Khazarians by lineage and/or self-adoption.”

Wrong. Most of the top leadership is jewish background, but the majority of the cannon fodder are catholic. Just like with the other fascistic strains of the right, and that includes nazism, who’s initial base was among southern catholic germans, btw.

I just want to say Trump was selected to be the fall guy by team Obama. Every year at the President’s Dinner with the Press old Obama goaded Trump into opposition to Obama. It was team Obama that suggested to Hillary that she should assist Trump to become the Republican nominee.

Trump is mousetrapped or is that a ruse.?

Obama is leading him from behind.?

Comey was an Obama appointee.

Comey swung the election to Trump under orders from Obama…maybe.?

Trump in firing Comey has shown he knows that Comey was a Trogan horse with more surprise laps left to run.?

‘But for whom? Who are the payers and handlers? Suggestions anyone?’ (from Anonymous)

Though I don’t like your anonimous name (just pick one), your posting here makes sense so why don’t you enter the discussions?

Besides, I would like to give you some hints upon your question.

First, I have read somewhere (without confirmation, so it might be wrong), that George W. Bush once asked his father (George H.W. Bush) what the difference was between conservatives and neo-conservatives. The story tells that his father simply answered ‘Israel’.

Finally, the financial globalisation stocks upon a few countries that still don’t have a central bank in western style. Those countries are Syria, Iran, Russia, China and North-Korea. The first cntral bank in western style was the Federal Reserve. They control the currency. The name ‘Federal’ is misleading, because it’s a private bank. Find out who ownes the Federal Reserve (and all other ‘western style’ central banks) and you will find the same few families all over again. And one of those families is the most vicious and feared one.
They really would love to bring their debt system to their advantage to the abovementioned countries as well. And steal their gold. Just a few days after the coup in Kiev all the gold was gone, as well as happened in Lybia.

“First, I have read somewhere (without confirmation, so it might be wrong), that George W. Bush once asked his father (George H.W. Bush) what the difference was between conservatives and neo-conservatives. The story tells that his father simply answered ‘Israel’.”

That is pretty much it. The paleos put personal greed first and foremost, and their propagandists produce reams of material proclaiming “greed is good” filling out conservative rags every year, justiying this defense of selfishness, the neocons added isreal ueber alles into the mix, but kept the devotion to greed and the rest of the toxic right wing nonsense essentially intact.

Besides israel, the neos also differ from the paleos in personal rights and are open about their homosexuality to a much wider degree than their paleo bros are. Not just about the prevalent bisexual/homosexual lifestyles, neocons are generally openly “liberals” in personal relationships (ie: less rule obsessed than paleos, in public, cons being very much into practicing double standards in private).

A lot of this more relaxed attitude among neocons has do do with growing up during the 1960s and later when many of the restrictive social rules enforced by paleos came under well deserved ridicule and only the most indoctrinated zombies continued maintaining these.

Left and right is irrelevant for the NeoCons. They will work with whoever as long as it favors their aims. European Jews cooperated with Nazis to enable selected connected and wealthy Jews to move to Palestine. The ordinary jews were sent to their doom with clear conscience. Now, European Jews work with the Ukrainian neo-Nazis in Ukraine to murder ‘Russians’ who are actually Russian-speaking east Ukrainians.

I’m not too familiar with Communism. One of the few things I know is that planned economy had several flaws.

Where is the link between Neoconservatism and Communism? Trying to tie both ideologies together is using the reasoning of guilt by association. So, because Burnham an allegedly former fan of Trotsky is known as the father of Neoconservatism is proof that this system derives from Communism? In my opinion this point lacks massive substance.

It is interesting how intellectuals describing intellectuals like Burnham take one leg of the elephant of the American hard left movement of 1920-1940 and make it supreme. James Burnham was an opportunistic sell out although the term ‘ defense intellectual’ will do nicely for his latter day heirs .HIs flirtation with Trotsky soon soured so to call him a Trotskyist is disingenuous to say the least. The Burnamites use of cell organizing tactics is pure Leninism which grew out of Lenin’s pragmatic need to keep his working class cadres out of the hands of the Chekha and the lessons he drew from the defeat of the 1905 uprisings against the Czar. The repression of the 1905 strikes by the way was nasty, violent and barbaric. Trotsky lead the Red Army and was the main editor of one of the newspapers in the 1905 uprising. He was totally outclassed and outgunned by Stalin when it came to cell organizing, faction fighting and use of the cult of personality.

American Trotskyists aligned with the working class and the Militant newspaper were in prison during WWII having refused to fight in an imperialist war. OK. it was a principled position at least even if one can criticize it for other reasons. Orwell left Spain by the way with Stalin’s goons hard on his heels who were picking off the Anarchist as well as the Trotskyist cadre of Catalonia.

Trotskyists openly participated as Trotskyists ( Young Socialist Alliance) and built the united front movement based on the campuses of the USA in the 1960’s called Committees to End the War in Vietnam. They were the least undercover of all the leftist groups operating at the time; and, might I say, the least either opportunist ( refusing to let these Committees be drawn into Democratic Party politics each election) or adventurist (no indulgence in anarchistic violence).

There was still a unionized, industrial working class in the USA at that time and many Trotskyist working class cadre were still alive . These were not the Burnham-vermin and actually were waiting for the fall of the Soviet Union so that the working class there could then really take over the means of production and reorganize how the society was run. They were Not anti-Russian at all but rather idealistic in their hopes for a better situation for humanity in general –most of them died before having to see their dreams crushed by watching the partial birth abortion of 1990’s Russia.

It is like talking about Muslims or anyone else in a hierarchical ideology on this planet—depends on which Muslim and which strain they adhere to and most importantly where they stand on the primal issues of the day. It is also the fact that history is written by the people living it but it never gets published ( except for the wonderful posting of letters from WWII which RT did on the 9th). It is the intellectuals that take up that task—for better or, most of the times, for worse because after all it is the history of the victors that prevails.

I think you meant Okhrana (Tsarist secret police) instead of the Cheka. Which was the first version of the Soviet secret police. But I agree with you on the Trotskyists. Though many of the neo-cons came from that group. That doesn’t mean Trotskyists all became neo-cons. Some of them kept to their Communist beliefs. Only the most zionist influenced and Russophobic ones switched to become neo-cons. Its a fact that many (most?) of the neo-con leaders and founders seem to come from Trotskyists backgrounds.But they split from the Trotskyists to become neo-cons.And of course the other large group of neo-cons seem to have come from fascist and oligarchical backgrounds,with a large input from British circles.

It is like talking about Muslims or anyone else in a hierarchical ideology on this planet—depends on which Muslim and which strain they adhere to … the primal issues of the day…

Ah, how many times have I read the word ‘strain’ used as a descriptor for variances in Islamic thought by those purveyors of truth, the writers at the NYT, WaPo, WSJ, CNN, VOA, etc. Great word, usually used in the context of causes of diseases and pestilence, now applied to a whole religion to conjure images of death and suffering in the minds of the unsuspecting public.

That’s right, reduce a religion to an ‘ideology’ a purely Western construct, a term that cannot be easily translated into Arabic or an Islamic language more used to describing a way of life rather than just a set of beliefs, along the lines of Marxism or Zionism.

Even a casual observer of Islam knows that it has no ‘church’, a hierarchy of clergy like in the Catholic Church but hey, what’s to stop one from applying the term to Islam, or even bringing up the subject of Muslims in comments on Neocons and Trotskyites.

Is there a primal instinct within you to use these terms in relation to Islam or are you just collecting the shekels?

I guess the point teranam13 is trying to make is that people don’t distinguish – especially when it comes to promote an ideology.

Opponents of everything social (for example single payer healthcare provided by the sate, instead of private insurers) lump together communism, socialism and Trotskyism.
Something similar can be observed with news about terrorist attacks (allegedly) committed by Muslims. Political commentators don’t even attempt to be neutral, they’re willingly joining the game of Islam bashing and fear mongering. If they’re trying to appear cautious they use the term “radical Islam” (Takfiri is rarely, nearly never used), in all other cases the word “Islamic” is used.

I guess that teranam13 is no native speaker. Replace the word strain with affiliation and his comment isn’t that offending at all.

Great set of essays. As stated on the tin, the authors have given us a good insight on how the neocons have taken over American policy-making and the character of the ‘Machiavellians’ operating in the US today — completely amoral and utterly ruthless.

Unfortunately they have stopped short of unmasking who the Machiavellians are, and in this respect I have to agree with Anon @ May 10, 2017 at 8:28 am UTC, to wit, and not mention jew, jewish, zionist, or israel even once. They have just stopped at Burnham, a former follower of the Ukrainian Jew Lev Davidovich Bronstein aka Leon Trotsky, and who later embraced American conservative right-wing ideology. A less charitable reader might view this work as another attempt at obfuscation because of the non-disclosure but the essays clarified several things, so I’ll take the view that the authors made certain assumptions about the reader’s knowledge of the present state of the Empire.

It is interesting that in his book ‘Struggle for the world’, Burnham devotes a chapter to World Government and in it he discusses a possible struggle between civilisations, in this case the ‘Far Eastern, Hindu, Islamic and Orthodox Christian’ civilisations. It’s just an observation but it sounds eerily familiar to those of us who have been incessantly bombarded with the ‘Clash of civilisations’ narrative 50 years later.

For somebody living ‘east of Suez’ (Kipling’s phrase lifted from an article written by Orwell about him) and subject to the Domino theory of the Vietnam era I found it hard to understand how or why the West transferred its anti-communist USSR stance to that of a rabid anti-Russia (which is not communist) one until I read Burnham’s book. Couple ‘Struggle’ with its cultural dimensions with Brzezinski’s geopolitical ‘Grand Chessboard’, and we remove any doubts about where the Empire is heading vis-a-vis Russia or rather, the Orthodox Christian civilisation. It would not be an exaggeration to say that it is going to be a monumental struggle between Good and Evil.

The Machiavellians have already started the preliminary moves with their ‘hybrid war’ as Andrew Korybko likes to put it. Russia is too nice to play the dirty game but two can play the hybrid war game nonetheless. Russia has had more than a cursory look at the Empire’s bag of dirty tricks. Perhaps it is time for Russia to put niceties aside and give the Machiavellians a taste of their own medicine. At the very least it may help to shake the American public out of their stupor and that may possibly put the fear of God in the godless Machiavellians back in their homeland.

When you’re living in the delusion of an idea/ideology that someone suggested would be a good idea (i.e.: forming a group for strength or protection) 10, 100, 1000/2000 years ago you are dead.

We live in today, the results of deceptions of conformity of dead minds should be obvious. If you’re awake the fog of whatever you’ve called yourself has gone – This is life otherwise you are death endlessly repeating lost mantra.

So for the dead: …. Change? No chance you must obey! …. Elections? You must be joking …. Potus?(in the case of us) – Depends on the conformity of it’s mouth.

Given the unlocking of the United Nations War Crimes Commission’s archives and the proof it provides to those who maintained the cries of Appeasement were just a Big Lie to cover up the actual policy goal of abetting the German Nazis and Hitlerism to destroy the USSR and that goal’s roots in the Russian Civil War, I would say this history doesn’t go back in time far enough. Additionally, the archive also provides proof that the Cold War was indeed started by FDR and Churchill when they signed the Atlantic Charter and was in full swing by 1943. Furthermore, the Outlaw US Empire’s been at war almost constantly since its inception in 1776, involving every political party gaining control of the Executive; so, the constant war policy to control the world long predates the authors’s timeline.

My conclusion is the basic neocon philosophy’s been around for millennia. But until the writings of Machiavelli, Bacon and Hobbes, it didn’t circulate very far. And it would seem to be an exclusive European thought system, alien to Asian, African and Native American thinking.

Yeah, right. So that’s why they stopped cold and returned to Mongolia to fight over the throne when the Great Khan died. “… leveled cities…” sure, most Eurasians lived on farms; where concentrated populations existed, there were no cities in the modern sense.

The Oriental system of thought is based on facts and rationality; the European is based on the Biggest Lie of All Time–Christianity–The Church did all it could to erase every vestige of Pagan/Asian prior existence–Greco-Roman philosophy being Asian to its core.

… to cover up the actual policy goal of abetting the German Nazis and Hitlerism to destroy the USSR and that …

That’s some interesting point. It seems to confirm my assumption that one objective to help Hitler get to power had been to fight Communism. I would go even further to state that they tried to revise their blunder of WW I. In my opinion Germany’s main objective to assist Lenin was to finish the war on the eastern front. No one could imagine the “impossible”, the largest blowback in history – a successful Russian revolution.

In the past three years I read that the Russian Revolution had been financed by wealthy US bankers, too. Whilst Germany tried to get rid of the Eastern Front, US objectives might’ve been different. A civil war (revolution) would weaken the country to such an extent, that the US could easily help with “humanitarian aid” in the form of the American Expeditionary Force Siberia.

I am glad you’re re-publishing this. This history is incredibly important and explains a lot about the last crazy 70-years+. I myself stumbled on the “Russians are coming” propaganda in the late 70s and could not believe my eyes/ears. (We were brainwashed back then to believe that Western media were super honest and accurate.) It took another 25 years to find out about Team B. What a horror!

The US-Zionist empire is the whore. The Beast who rides her and eventually kills her are those serving the ultimate endgame of Antichrist. The stage is being set for the Great War, after which will rise the Pax Judaica. The visible players are not the key: Ephesians 6:12.

“Ultimately, it would be most precise to say that the NWO conspirators are using the military might of America to forge a unipolar One World Government. This really isn’t about America. It’s about using America as a tool to achieve the New World Order, then discarding it, stripping it of power and relegating it to the same level as all other nations, under the heel of the international banksters who yearn to rule the world.”

Almost completely right. But the NWO of the banksters is the means, not the end. The end is what Christian and Islamic eschatology call the rule of the false Messiah and his “counter religion”. The “devil” isn’t interested in money or power per se, but in the destruction of men’s souls.

wonder why the authors left out the seminal importance of Leo Strauss who was the teacher of many neocons at Chicago’s University who signed the PNAC in 1996????? Why the silence around this diabolical personality that played such a vital role in the formation of this group who bases must of his political views in this manifesto on the Strauss societal and political theory? If Burnham was the neocons ‘father then surely the maternity act should be recognise in Strauss

“wonder why the authors left out the seminal importance of Leo Strauss”

Because strauss is obviously rightwing, connected to isreal, and not some guy playing left-winger till his zionazi paymasters instructed him to shift to the right. Mention of him would interfere with the “narrative”.

No mention of the Rockefeller/CFR which has dominated U.S. policy since WW2, even though many of the leading “neocons” are/were also CFR members, including: Dick Cheney, John McCain, Paul Wolfowitz, Elliot Abrams, Paul Bremer, James Woolsey, Robert Kagan, Eliot Cohen, etc.

Sorry to say, but I found this article something of a disappointment. It’s even unclear to me how the authors define the term “neoconservative”. Zbigniew Brzezinski, for example, is an old-line Polish nationalist conservative not a “neoconservative”. Military aggression and imperialist designs are not unique to neoconservatives.

I don’t believe it’s possible to develop any kind of strategies to oppose the neocon program without understanding their mindset. Neocons are not “crazy”. Their priorities are simply different than what would expect from American nationals.

As others have already pointed out, neoconservatism is, in fact, a Jewish movement. This is clearly described by, for example, Jacob Heilbrunn in his recent book “They knew they were right”. The essay by Kevin MacDonald “Neoconservatism as a Jewish Movement” is also must reading on this topic.

Regarding the historical development of neoconservatism as we now know it, I would suggest that the watershed event in the process was the Six Day War. For American Jews, the result of this war was perhaps no less important than the Allied victory in World War II. Thomas Friedman in “From Beirut to Jerusalem” describes his own experiences of that time. Prior to this event, Israel was of little interest to American Jews. The results of the war resulted in a huge outpouring of pride, excitement and ethnic solidarity for the Jewish People and Israel.

The unique features of the neoconservative movement such as the integration of US foreign policy with the interests of Israel could not have occurred without the direct involvement of the cohort of committed Jews who entered government institutions after that time.

However, as a consequence of this, neocons are unusually dangerous since they have no particular allegiance to the United States or particular concern over its ultimate future.

The Elephant in the room IS….the Masonic/Illuminati.
The Masonic game evolved after the Church in Rome had run the Templars off….and then run the
Venetian Banksters off.
Some Templar wealth and power Elites becomes Swiss Cantons and the Future Swiss Banking power.
Venetian Bankers hit Amsterdam and later jump the channel to City of London.
Rothschild house is involved with the Vatican and the Masonic houses.
By the time of King Edward VII http://tarpley.net/online-books/against-oligarchy/king-edward-vii-of-great-britain-evil-demiurge-of-the-triple-entente-and-world-war-1/http://tarpley.net/online-books/against-oligarchy/king-edward-vii-of-great-britain-evil-demiurge-of-the-triple-entente-and-world-war-1/
Masonic houses are in Russia….The games afoot!
The Masonic – Military Industrial Complex of past hundreds years finds Jewish presence folded into it.
Jews have historically been kicked out of so many countries and blocked from civic authority for a reason.
One notices that Putin is surrounded by Powerfull Jewish Oligarchs in Russia,…and that the Chabad Lubavitch were instrumental in his sudden rise to leadership….compared to Trump/Drumpf…. A Jew,…who is deep into
Chabad Lubavitch via his Family ties and past Financial dealings.
The Vatican /Jesuits /SMOM were the base of US power from WW 2 OSS become CIA with Ratline Nazi and NASA
Which is in your face Masonic/Illuminati game.
The present 7 country in 5 years game of the Masonic Illuminati Jews is off of the False Flag Illuminati 911
Kick off.
Putin and Trump are playing the Masonic game.
Just a reminder,….the Masonic game of nations is betrayal,intrigues,assassinations and wars like
Napoleon Era forward to today’s Hired Mercenary which mirrors the game the Church Universal did
In Europe during 50 and 100 years wars. ( Michael Caine – The Last Valley ) Movie.
Today’s Corporations With powers greater than nation governments. ..now compete with the Historic
Game** of Control.

Sitemap

Saker Android App

An Android App has been developed by one of our supporters. It is available for download and install by clicking on the Google Play Store Badge above.

All the original content published on this blog is licensed by Saker Analytics, LLC under the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 4.0 International license (creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0). For permission to re-publish or otherwise use non-original or non-licensed content, please consult the respective source of the content.